On Friday, February 5, 2021 at 11:49:53 AM UTC-7 [email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 10:41 AM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: > > *> you've asserted that the total gravitational energy is identically >> zero,* > > > NO! Two particles have zero gravitational potential energy only if they > are infinitely far apart, at any other finite distance it's negative. > I've asked you to refrain from truncating my comments. By doing so in this case, you've distorted my meaning. AG > What I've asserted is that if General Relativity is correct then the > negative gravitational potential energy plus the positive mass/energy that > comes from rest mass, photons, neutrinos, kinetic motion, and all other > well-known sources of energy must sum to zero. > Well, I thought you had a principled argument, not just a claim. AG > But when we actually observe the universe that doesn't seem to work > because the negative gravitational energy produced by all the stuff we can > see only amounts to about 30% of what would be needed to balance out the > positive energy that comes from matter even if you include Dark Matter. > *Here's what you wrote in your original message. Note; no mention of dark matter or the properties you later attribute to it ! AG* *JC: You might ask if the sphere gets larger what makes it get larger, where did that mass/energy come from? The answer is It comes from the gravitational energy released as the sphere of vacuum energy falls outward . So at any point in this process if you add up all the positive kinetic energy and energy locked up in matter (remember E=MC^2) of the universe and all the negative potential gravitational energy of the universe you always get precisely zero. * *In addition, you haven't explained how negative gravitational energy is converted to rest mass, and thus able to contribute to kinetic energy. And you can't appeal to the example of hydroelectric dams storing potential energy, since this PE is not converted to rest mass. I think you like the idea of net gravitational energy being "precisely zero", so you prematurely affirmed it as fact for any objective observer of your comments, when it is far from that. AG * However we've also noticed Dark Energy that causes the universe to > accelerate. Accelerating the entire universe to the degree we've seen would > require a very large additional negative potential energy reservoir of some > sort, like the vacuum energy that is part of space itself, and it turns out > that the amount needed would provide the missing 70% to make the total > energy of the universe be exactly zero. > *Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the properties of dark matter. We don't even know if E=mc^2 applies to dark matter. I am not against speculation, but you should distinguish known facts from speculation, which you clearly failed to do. AG * -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e01ff3e7-af55-4373-a7d0-33b15c6f17d0n%40googlegroups.com.
